[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120424143015.99fd8d4a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:30:15 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] propagate gfp_t to page table alloc functions
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:48:29 +1000
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
> > Hmm, there are several places to use GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS even, GFP_ATOMIC.
> > I believe it's not trivial now.
>
> They're all buggy then. Unfortunately not through any real fault of their own.
There are gruesome problems in block/blk-throttle.c (thread "mempool,
percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation and remove stats_lock"). It
wants to do an alloc_percpu()->vmalloc() from the IO submission path,
under GFP_NOIO.
Changing vmalloc() to take a gfp_t does make lots of sense, although I
worry a bit about making vmalloc() easier to use!
I do wonder whether the whole scheme of explicitly passing a gfp_t was
a mistake and that the allocation context should be part of the task
context. ie: pass the allocation mode via *current. As a handy
side-effect that would probably save quite some code where functions
are receiving a gfp_t arg then simply passing it on to the next
callee.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists